Diplomatic Buffoonery

[steepholm]

I'd dearly love to know why the UK Government is making such an arse of itself over the question of the Ecuadorian embassy. Is it being leant on? Or does it really fear Assange so much that it's willing to overturn the whole principle of the sovereignty of embassies on which international diplomacy depends, just to catch him?

I know they're citing the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987, which allows the Home Secretary to withdraw the diplomatic status of an embassy - but that, let's be clear, is a nuclear option, more appropriate for cases such as that of the Libyans in 1984, where they were actually shooting from the embassy windows. All the Ecuadorians are doing is harbouring someone the UK authorities would like to arrest, just as embassies of all stripes have done for centuries. Do we believe that the UK government would be taking the same line if Assange were being sheltered by, say, the Chinese or the French? Thought not. I don't agree with every claim about British imperialism emanating from South America (cf. Argentina), but in this case the Ecuadorians are right on the money.

Only, I do suspect that the British are acting as someone else's catspaw here. The crimes Assange is accused of are ones I consider serious, but the UK government has never acted with this degree of rigour to extradite alleged foreign rapists before. Compare and contrast the situation in 2004, when it actually made arrangements to allow the well-known child molester Roman Polanski to sue Vanity Fair in London without having to enter the country, hence avoiding the necessity of extraditing him to the USA. With that history of bending over backwards to provide assistance to rapists, why should we believe them now?

Comments

[communicator.livejournal.com]

I was talking to my son last night about the background to the 1987 act. He was saying 'why 1987?' Yes, I think it was a response to the embassy incidents of the early 1980s. It's totally inappropriate now. I mean Assange is obviously a pretty messed-up character, but this is also (I think) clearly a precursor to him being disappeared into an American process which will be secret and probably involve torture. I don't think that's an exaggeration - look what they are doing to Manning.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Yep - I share that analysis.

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

Cameron and his pretty little band of chancers have obviously never learned the wisdom of the old saw, 'when you are in a hole, stop digging' I hold absolutely no brief for that limelight case, Assange, but this is a worrying development.

And as to waiting until _after_ the Olympics to break this- have HMG truly taken leave of their senses?

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Indeed. This is not the kind of hole you can bury bad news in.

[sheenaghpugh]

I don't credit that they will be so silly as to to do it - our own ambassadors far and wide would have a collective fit at the thought of what might happen to them. But it annoys me that this may generate sympathy for a man who comes over as a cowardly creep and who should face trial.

Mean and nasty.

[ron-broxted.livejournal.com]

Firstly, the 1987 law was at the height of Thatcherism, and it shows.
Secondly, Peking allowed Chen to escape so Britain looks worse than China.
Thirdly, I hope Correa chucks all UK staff in jail, quid pro quo.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

I am assuming this is some kind of Tory ideological thing, all about wikileaks really, because, well, They Are Special. They don't care about women: that's quite clear from their policies.
As to Assange himself... I find his claiming asylum rather offensive in the first place. People who are in real danger need that option, and he is, imho, using it as a stunt to evade facing up to his actions in Sweden.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

The trouble is, if he goes there, it does seem very likely that he will be disappeared to America, as communicator suggests.

Unfortunately it's hard to assess the situation, or Assange's character, since what we see of both has been subject to intensive manipulation (not least, but not only, by Assange himself).

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

I'm not convinced he will be extradited. The UK is far more of a lapdog to the US than Sweden.

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

I'm not convinced he will be extradited to the US either because if he genuinely faced the possibility of torture or the death penalty, the European Court of Human Rights would apply.

I also agree with your assessment that it's a stunt to evade what he did in Sweden. My personal assessment of Assange (based, admittedly, on what has been revealed in the press) is that he has a huge sense of entitlement. His view seems to be that rules don't apply to him, only to small people. Frankly I am beginning to wonder how many friends he has left after he betrayed their trust and jumped bail. I hope that the people who put up the money for him could afford to lose it.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

Oh, yes!

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Any or all of that may be true, and perhaps we'll find out in time. But why do you think the UK government took such an incredibly hard line with the Ecuadorians?

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

I didn't read it as taking a particularly hard line, more as a reminder to the Ecuadorians that they do have the means at their disposal, but please not to push them into the position of having to use it. As to why thy are mentioning it, you need look no further than the fact that Assenge has caused them a lot of embarrassment, firstly over the leaked material and now by putting two fingers up to the courts and jumping bail and making the whole thing into a publicity stunt and diplomatic problem. Never underestimate the power of embarrassment when it comes to governments.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Oh, I disagree about the hard line. Threatening to revoke the diplomatic status of a country's embassy so that they can enter by force is about as hard as it gets - and, as I say, they wouldn't be doing it to a country they didn't think they could bully with relative impunity. That's what makes me the most cross about it all, now I think about it - because the UK is acting like the kid in the playground everyone despises, a cringing toady to those it sees as more powerful, and a bully to those it sees as weaker. I would like to think we're better than that.

Embarrassment may well be a factor - and I notice you didn't say the UK was acting because it felt strongly about the seriousness of the charges the Swedes want to question Assange about. But if so, I think it's misfired badly, because Assange was far less of an embarrassment a week ago than he is today. They should have let him stew, as he was doing quite nicely.

[shewhomust.livejournal.com]

My first assumption was that the message to Ecuador was: 'If you want him you can have him, but please remove him from London where he is embarrassing us.' But they don't appear to be offering safe passage to Ecuador, so apparently not.